I dont care what you ran stock. I care what you ran when you hit a 1.7x 60. ONE m3 has run 11s stock at a bull$#@! inaccurate track and it did it at 118-119 mph. ZERO e9x m3s ran 11.9 @ 115 NA. Some one here is delusional.....

I don't care what you care about. You can try to discount Sac all you want with absolutely no evidence to support you as you it doesn't change the fact my slip is evidence at a track you can't simply call "BS" on to suit you as you please of the car being more than capable of 11's.

Someone here doesn't want to admit they are wrong. The E92 M3 is 11 second capable with bolt on's, deal with it. 115 miles per hour is enough for an 11 second run, deal with it. The E46 M3 also ran 12's stock BTW. DEAL WITH IT, because that's reality.

you posted ZERO evidence. You posted some a 12.1 @ 115 time slip with a 1.9 60 on drag radials. Then you claimed you hit a 1.7 after a line lock but ran in worse DA. Based on the .1 off the 60 is roughly .15-.20 off the ET your could would run soemhwere around 11.7-11.8 at 115. That won't happen first of all, and second of all it never has happened in a m3. You refuse to post the 1.7 60 timeslip because it will make you put your foot in your mouth and look liek a complete retard on your own board.

you posted ZERO evidence. You posted some a 12.1 @ 115 time slip with a 1.9 60 on drag radials.

Yep, and this is not evidence of a 1.7 60 foot, which has been achieved by multiple parties multiple times and exceeded, of propelling an M3 at 115 miles per hour into the 11's? What are you having trouble with again? Is it too many numbers and words that are confusing you?

That's right, providing equal conditions and an equal setup that is exactly what it would be. Wow, math adds up. You just proved MY POINT FOR ME.

Originally Posted by Laloosh

That won't happen first of all, and second of all it never has happened in a m3.

I'm sorry more people don't drag race it to prove what clearly is mathematically possible especially considering 11's have already been achieved at a higher trap. Considering the M3 can trap higher than 115 with bolt ons and has already run 11's the question of it being 11 seconds capable is a moot point now and the question of it being 11 seconds capable at 115 miles per hour was just proven.

Case closed.

Originally Posted by Laloosh

You refuse to post the 1.7 60 timeslip because it will make you put your foot in your mouth and look liek a complete retard on your own board.

No I refused to put it up because my setup changed affecting my top end and it was already put up multiple times on this board. The only person looking like a retard is you reaching for whatever you can grasp like when you claimed I ran 1.7X with a supercharger without knowing showing you will GRASP AT STRAWS. The evidence is overwhelmingly against you. Only someone of limited mental aptitude would continue when proven wrong but... that's exactly you so no reason to expect you to process the information and come to the correct conclusion.

Post the timeslip of your 1.7 run. Why are you hiding it? Is it because the car ran slower than it did with a 1.9 60? Would like an educational lesson of how trap speed has far less affect on et as apposed to 60 foot time? Keep digging, anyone with half a brain and experience drag racing is laughing at you right now.

Post the timeslip of your 1.7 run. Why are you hiding it? Is it because the car ran slower than it did with a 1.9 60? Would like an educational lesson of how trap speed has far less affect on et as apposed to 60 foot time? Keep digging, anyone with half a brain and experience drag racing is laughing at you right now.

Ah yes more generalizations based on not knowing what you are talking about and reaching. No, it ran 1 MPH slower due to the density altitude and 3.62 gears versus 3.15. But of course, you knew that.

Diverting from once against doesn't change the fact the math adds up perfectly that not only is the M3 capable of 11's at 115 which you proved on your own, it is easily capable of 11's with bolt on's. Sorry sweetheart that's reality learn to deal with it. If it wasn't the M3 involved in the discussion you would have already admitted it as you basically did in your previous post supporting the math at work here.

So you geared to to help it get out the hole confirming what I said previously. What was the ET with that 114 trap speed and 1.7 60?

No I did not gear it to help out of the hole. Once again, M3's have hit 11's stock gearing and once again this has nothing to do with it being proven the M3 is 11 seconds capable with bolt ons as well as only 115 miles per hour which you are of course were incorrect about.

There are plenty of domestics that can do 11.9x on 112-114mph, but the 1/8 mile needs to be close to 7.6-7.7 ET @ 88-89mph and usually a 60' of 1.6x-1.7x.

The argument should be, can an M3 regularly get a 1.7x or better 60' and can the M3 do a 115mph trap FBO? I don't know, but the back and forth on if it's possible is dumb, of course it's possible at 115mph.

but the back and forth on if it's possible is dumb, of course it's possible at 115mph.

Exactly and anyone who has ever been to a strip knows that. The fact some of these idiots argue otherwise shows how blatantly biased they are and also their inability to swallow their pride and admit they are wrong. Not to mention a very basic understanding of the M3 with little experience as to what it can or can't do.

I had to deal with these same idiots years ago when I stated the M3 could run 11's and it's sad to see people still have their heads buried in the sand despite reality showing otherwise. This thread shows the difference between car enthusiasts though and blind fanboys though.

Exactly and anyone who has ever been to a strip knows that. The fact some of these idiots argue otherwise shows how blatantly biased they are and also their inability to swallow their pride and admit they are wrong. Not to mention a very basic understanding of the M3 with little experience as to what it can or can't do.

I had to deal with these same idiots years ago when I stated the M3 could run 11's and it's sad to see people still have their heads buried in the sand despite reality showing otherwise. This thread shows the difference between car enthusiasts though and blind fanboys though.

Once again, ONE m3 ran 11s at a bull$#@! track and that has yet to be matched, however that was at a higher trap speed, which once again is yet to be matched.
Until some one does it, it hasnt happened and the car has been out for over 5 years.....
You personally sure as hell didnt do it, even when you ran 1.7 60.

Did you hear that with my 122 trap speed my car is gonna hit a 10.9 the way it sits? Man a whole second faster lol.

Once again, ONE m3 ran 11s at a bull$#@! track and that has yet to be matched

I'm sorry, the runs at Sac are completely accurate the M3 ran. You try to discount the track however you want but I WAS THERE THAT DAY. Were you? So you're simply calling BS without any support whatsoever.

And additionally the only issue with the timer at SAC in the past was the trap speed not the ET and that was well before any of these runs. So once again, learn what the hell you are talking about.

Originally Posted by Laloosh

Until some one does it, it hasnt happened and the car has been out for over 5 years.....
You personally sure as hell didnt do it, even when you ran 1.7 60.

I personally went and got a supercharger and didn't care about proving what had already been proven. The fact you don't want to pay attention to the evidence and ignore the M3 already ran 11's year ago is your problem.

Ya, I'm sure I couldn't pick up less than 2/10's or anything with an improved 60 foot right? Or maybe with a full exhaust and race gas tune too while I'm at it? Did you even realize that was one of he first tunes I was running back when I hit 12.1? Of course not. So go ahead and be oblivious and pretend like 2/10's could not be found in the motor or launch when a 1.9X clearly points to it being MORE THAN POSSIBLE.

Originally Posted by Laloosh

Did you hear that with my 122 trap speed my car is gonna hit a 10.9 the way it sits? Man a whole second faster lol.

There's a difference between picking up 1 second due to an increase in 2/10's in the 60 foot and picking up 2/10's necessary to hit 11's. You are on the wrong side, yet again, point proven. Now you just look stupid the longer you continue.